Assessing wild genetic background and parental effects on size of growth hormone transgenic coho salmon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experiments examining potential impacts of growth hormone (GH) transgenesis in fish typically use a single source strain and do not address potential differential impacts in strains of different genetic backgrounds. Here, we examine the effects of differing genetic backgrounds when reared in culture on the growth of transgenic and nontransgenic coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) produced by mating sires from different rivers with transgenic dams from a single origin. We found a significant difference in size between offspring of sires originating from various river systems in British Columbia. This difference was independent of differences between transgenotypes (i.e., transgenic vs. nontransgenic offspring). However, the effects of strain or sire were relatively small compared to the effects of the transgene, which were consistent regardless of sire origin. Thus, results derived from studies of GH transgenic fish from a single source population can provide useful information for assessments of GH transgenic salmon from other systems. This has important implications for examining potential risks from introgression of a transgene into different populations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".